Global Climate Change Science News

[Strontium Dog]

As a totally non-essential industry, meat production could be halted tomorrow if the will was there. Not something you can say about any single other greenhouse gas emitting sector.

Unfortunately people are too fond of their murderburgers, so the planet will burn.

[macdoc]

Even China has not touted that.

[pErvinalia]

But the personal cost of going vegan is very low for the individual.

Speak for yourself, I hate vegetables!

[JimC]

Around half our evening meals are vegetarian these days. But not vegan - I love cheese too much!

[macdoc]

Ditto here....likely more than half as we use lots of meat subs.....I'm the carnivore....partner the rabbit.

[JimC]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-31/ ... /102798366

Renewable energy company RayGen has officially opened its $27 million renewable power plant project in Carwarp, in north-west Victoria, which it hopes could propel investment in this type of energy storage.

The solar/hydro power plant near Mildura utilises solar energy trapped by more than 1,000 rotating mirrors to generate electricity, and also captures excess heat as hot water which is then used to drive a generator and send stable electricity to the grid.

An interesting combination of photovoltaics and heat engines...

[Brian Peacock]

Even China has not touted that.

I guess what you mean there is that if the huge population of China won't go vegan then there's no point anyone else trying?

The first thing to mention about such an assumption is that it's as unhelpful to individualise the solution by country as it is to individualise by person. This global heating thing is a global crisis, and therefore requires global solutions.

The second thing to mention is that such an assumptions presumes that all meat eating is kind of equal - that China's meat eating is essentially the same as the US or Australia. You'll understand that this isn't quite right if you look at OECD/UN Farming and Agriculture Organisation (PDF, Chapter 6) agricultural assessment, or their last set of complete figures on meat consumption from 2020, which show that China eats around half the meat per person per year (c.60kg) as the United States (c.130kg), or Australia (c.120kg). Sure the numbers for China are big given their population size, but when it comes to average consumption the numbers are quite a bit bigger per person for the US (ranked 2nd, behind Hong Kong) and Australia (ranked 3rd) when compared to China (ranked 69th).

If we're going to individualise the issue (which on the whole I don't think is very helpful) then the citizens of the global North are eating more meat and having a significantly greater climate and ecological impact through animal agriculture than the majority of the world's citizens. I mean, if the citizens of China followed your fine example and cut their meat consumption in half (for which I commend you btw), US and Australian citizens would have to cut their consumption by more than 3.5 times as much to achieve the same level of climate impact.

Continuing with the individualisation (is that even a word?), if you're an average Australian then cutting your meat consumption in half means you'll be eating about the same amount of meat per year as the average Chinese. So if the calorific content from, and the climate and ecological impact of, animal agriculture are about the same for the half-meat Ozzie and the full-meat Chinese, then any implied criticisms from the half-meat Ozzie about the impact of China's meat consumption don't really hold up, because it would be unfair to expect the Chinese to eat half as much meat as they do just so the Ozzie could continue to eat twice as much them.

But you're not an average Australian are you? Because you've already reduced your consumption of meat you've already made a consumer choice that's had a real and positive impact on your personal footprint - probably the most significant impact you can have as an individual consumer after flying and cars. But even so, although your dietary choice impacts your personal footprint it doesn't really impact the footprint of meat production or consumption overall does it? So again, we're into the problem of scale.

Choosing to seriously reduce one's meat and/or dairy consumption, and the concomitant associated impacts, even in some small way, is personally commendable, and I would never criticise anyone for doing so, to whatever degree. But the meat industry freight train barrels on regardless, and according to the OECD/UNFAO 2023 assessment is projected to pick up speed year-on-year from here-on-out.

The huge ecological, energy, water, carbon and emissions impact of agriculture, and the disproportionate impact of animal agriculture within that sector, only highlights that the climate impact of the meat industry needs to be addressed systematically, and on a global scale: basically, international coordination to manage its forced decline. We know that this kind of strategic approach makes sense with regards to the fossil fuel sector, so what's stopping us applying the same logic to the agricultural sector, and the industrialised meat sector in particular?

[pErvinalia]

Because meat tastes good.

[Brian Peacock]

Your sausage will kill us all!

[Svartalf]

My sausage used to make my girlfriend scream, the good way.

[macdoc]

Harvest the humans instead....

How a Mere 12% of Americans Eat Half the Nation's Beef, Creating Significant Health and Environmental Impacts
Aug. 30, 2023 — A new study found that 12% of Americans, mostly men or people aged 50-65, consume half of all beef on a given day, contributing to adverse health and environmental impacts. Educational programs

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131808.htm

[Brian Peacock]

Blimey!

[Sean Hayden]

[macdoc]

why are you posting up long ago discredited denier assholes in the Climate Science thread.

He hsa no climate credentials and is a paid shill for the FF industry

Richard Lindzen

Credentials

Ph.D., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964).1
S.M., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961).2
A.B. (mcl), Physics, Harvard University (1960).3
Background

Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),4 a position he held from 1985 until his retirement in 2013.6

Lindzen’s academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability,” according to his faculty profile at MIT.7

Lindzen is a former distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute‘s Center for the Study of Science.8 The Center shut down in 2019, and was no longer affiliated with Lindzen at that time. “It’s unclear when he left Cato, and [Spokeswoman Khristine] Brookes declined to comment on personnel issues,” E&E News reported.9

The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.10 In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.11

https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/

[Sean Hayden]

Because they are interesting to me, and I’m not worried.

His qualifications are solid.

I wondered if politics might be behind his stance instead. For example, I noticed that while he is quick to point out the complexity of climate and how that makes using a single metric like temperature problematic, he was happy to reduce complex human behavior to a handful of clichés about power.